IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. cannot continue when a civil suit regarding the same property is pending, emphasizing the civil court's authority to determine title and possession.

JUDGMENT :

NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J.

1. Heard Sri Ashutosh Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Rajiv Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Sri Kashif Gilani, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 5 and 7, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6, Sri Suraj Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

2. The present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed with a prayer to set-aside the order dated 28.08.2023 (Anneuxre-1) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Court No. 1, Jaunpur in Criminal Revision No. 167 of 2023 (Rajkumar and others vs. State of U.P. and others), arising out of Case No. 4287 of 2022 under Section 145 Cr.P.C. during the pendency of this present petition.

3. Briefly, the dispute pertains to Plot No. 287 Ka situated at Village Belwa, Tehsil Mariahu, District-Jaunpur, which belongs to the petitioner No. 1 Laxmi Narayan whose name was recorded in the CH Form 45 during the consolidation proceedings. The petitioner has been residing over the said plot after constructing a two storey house using the second floor for residential purpose and the first floor with a godown for running the shop.

4. On 08.05.2022, the respondent No. 6 Durga Prasad moved an application under Section 145 Cr.P.C. before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Mariahu, District-Jaunpur alleging that there is apprehension of breach of peace as he owns a share in Plot No. 287 Ka and the petitioners were illegally occupying the said plot and the house constructed over it whereas the respondent Nos. 5 to 7 together owned half share in the said house.

5. Accordingly, a Police Report dated 21.05.2022 was sought from the concerned Police Station. According to the said report, the ground floor was occupied by the petitioners whereas the second floor was occupied by respondent Nos. 5 to 7. However, the respondent Nos. 5 to 7 have constructed a separate house and were residing there.

6. Accordingly, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Mariahu, District-Jaunpur passed a preliminary order dated 01.06.2022 under Section 145(1) Cr.P.C. holding that there was apprehension of breach of peace over the disputed property and directed the parties to appear with their records claiming their title. After having gone through the reply and the objections raised by the parties, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, concerned vide order dated 10.04.2023 directed the Naib Tehsildar concerned to submit a report after making a spot inspection. The Naib Tehsildar concerned alongwith the Lekhpal concerned submitted its report dated 13.04.2023 stating that the petitioners are in possession of the plot in dispute and currently residing with their family on the second floor of the house and running the shop on the first floor having a godown as well. The said report also stated that there was no apprehension of breach of peace over the said plot and Durga Prasad had no possession on that house.

7. Accordingly, the Sub Division Magistrate, Tehsil Mariahu, District-Jaunpur vide order dated 15.04.2023 had recalled the order dated 01.06.2022 and dropped the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. on the ground that as per the report of Naib Tehsildar concerned, the petitioners are in possession of the house constructed over Plot No. 287 Ka and there was no apprehension of breach of peace.

8. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent Nos. 5 to 7 preferred a Criminal Revision No. 167 of 2023 challenging the order dated 15.04.2023 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Jaunpur. Accordingly, vide order dated 28.08.2023 the Revisional Court had set aside the order dated 15.04.2023 and remanded the matter to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Mariahu, District-Jaunpur for fresh consideration in respect to their possession alongwith the relevant records.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the impugned order dated 28.08.2023 is highly illegal and arbitrary as there was no app